House subcommittee hears allegations of antisemitism in unions and debates remedies for forced dues

At a hearing of the House Education and Labor subcommittee, witnesses testified about allegations that some unions and student unions have created hostile workplaces for Jewish members and about legal and institutional barriers to obtaining exemptions from mandatory union dues.

The hearing brought accounts from current and former union members and legal advocates, a labor historian and a lawyer who represents employees seeking to leave unions. Witnesses described workplace poster campaigns, internal union discipline decisions, and university contract provisions they said left Jewish workers and graduate students exposed to harassment while having limited practical options to decline funding union political activity.

The claims mattered to members because they touch on intersecting issues of workplace civil‑rights protection, the scope of the National Labor Relations Act and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) practice, and whether and how universities and employers enforce exemptions for objectors. “Jewish union members have the right to expect that their union will fight to remediate toxic antisemitic workplaces, not be the ones creating them,” said Kyle Kopell Mann, a senior staff attorney at the New York Legal Assistance Group and a former member of the union at her workplace, who described withdrawing as a religious objector after October 7, 2023.

Mann testified that after her employer banned posters related to the Israel–Gaza conflict in office space in order to shield clients and staff, her union filed unfair‑labor‑practice charges. She said some Jewish staff obtained religious‑objector status because they no longer believed the union could fairly represent them and that some Jewish colleagues attended meetings only by video because of the office atmosphere. “For months, Jewish staff posted posters glorifying violence against Jews and Israelis,” Mann said in testimony she submitted to the record. She said she and others filed complaints with the NLRB and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

David Rubinstein, a Cornell University Ph.D. candidate, testified that the Cornell Graduate Student Union (CGSU), affiliated with the United Electrical Workers (UE), protected students accused of misconduct related to pro‑Hamas activity and imposed mandatory dues that he and others say they were then required to justify refusing. Rubinstein said university officials initially told objectors that a simple form would suffice to obtain a religious exemption; he said that, in practice, union officials required intrusive questionnaires and personal letters and that some objectors were still being denied relief. Rubinstein said he and others filed discrimination charges with the EEOC after the union pressed for personal information and the university accepted the union's approach.

Glenn Taubman, a staff attorney at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, told the panel that federal labor statutes and NLRB precedent enable unions to act as exclusive bargaining representatives and to collect compulsory dues, which, he said, can force objectors to subsidize politics they oppose. Taubman urged legislation including a national Right to Work law, statutory reclassification of graduate students as students rather than employees, and strengthening Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make religious accommodation claims easier for employees in unionized workplaces.

Joseph A. McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown University, offered historical context, saying that the American labor movement has historically been diverse and, in his view, an important force opposing antisemitism. “No one can certify there are no antisemites in the labor movement,” McCartin said, but he warned against treating contemporary allegations as representative of the movement’s entire history.

Committee members questioned witnesses on remedies and broader implications. Several Republicans on the panel emphasized legislative solutions such as a national Right to Work law and changes to NLRB practice; Democrats and some witnesses cautioned that weakening unions could affect collective bargaining gains that reduce inequality. Members also discussed the Janus and Beck Supreme Court precedents, Title VII religious accommodation procedures, the duty of fair representation doctrine, and NLRB vacancies that members said have limited agency action.

No formal committee votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing. Members said they would pursue further oversight and potential legislative responses; several recommended prompt NLRB appointments and clearer institutional procedures at universities and employers to process religious‑objection claims.

The hearing record includes multiple filings and attachments referenced by witnesses, including testimony and exhibits submitted to the subcommittee and complaints filed with the NLRB and EEOC. The committee left the record open for 14 days to receive additional written statements.

Ending

Committee members from both parties said they intended further review. Some members sought legislative changes to curtail compulsory dues or to redefine graduate students’ status; others urged the NLRB and universities to act promptly on objections and discrimination complaints. The subcommittee provided no final resolution during the session.